# ORIGI[{At

llntbt@nitt! 9itatts @ourt

# otftlprul @lufins
No. 15-388G 

### Fifed: 

### December2,2015

* ,1.'* :1.* * * * :i * * * * * * :* * * i 

### MESSIAH 

### MIZEL, EX REL. 

### KAMAL

### JALAL: JAMES, 

### Plaintiff,

v, UNITED STATES,

### Defendant.
* * :1.*,1. * * * :l * * :i * * *,* * * 

### Messiah Aziz El, Ex 

### Rel' 

### Kamal'Jalal: James, pro se, Freehold, NJ' 

### Albert

## s. larossi, Trial Attorney, commercial Litigation Branch, 

### civil Division, 

### united States Department 

### of Justice, 

### washington, D.C.,

### for defendant.

### with himwere 

### Robert E. Kirschman, 

### Jr., Director, 

### commercial Litigation Branch, 

### and 

### Benjamin 

### c. Mizer, Principal Deputy AssistantAttorney General, 

### civil Division, 

### washington, D.C. 

## ORDER

HORN. J.
FINDINGS OF FACT 

### PIq se plaintiff 

### Messiah Aziz El, "Ex. Rel Kamal-Jalal: James"rfiled 

### a complaint2 

### in the

### -UniiJd States Court

## of Federal 

### Claims alleging "deprivation 

## of Petitioner's 

# FILED

DEC

### - 2 ?015 U,S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; In 

### Forma PauPeris; 

### Lack of Subject Matter 

### Jurisdiction.

1The caption for the complaint filed inthis court onApril 

### 17,2015lists "Messiah Aziz 

### El' Ex. Rel. Kamal-Jalal: James" as

### the 

### plaintiff. Inthe

### first line of

### the complaint, however, ;Crystat Gabri El, Ex. Rel Crystal-Gabrielle: Hawkins'' is also indicated as a

### plaintiff' The onty signature onthe complaintwas MessiahAziz El. Rule 11(a) ofthe Rules of.the United 

### StaleJCourt of Federat Claims (RCFC) (2015) requires every pleading be signed by a 

### farty personally 

### ifthe party 

### is unrepresented, G1ve1

### that neither "Kamal James" nor 

### lCry"tbf GaOri El," ifthey are 

### two additional individuals, signed the.complaint, this court does not consider 

### eithei as a plaintiff inthe above captioned case because they did not comply with RCFC 1 1

### (a). Accordingly, Mr. El is considered the only plaintiff inthis action. ln its submissions tothe court, defe-ndant refersto plaintiff as "Kamal James," which may be his legal name.
2 Plaintiff has filed 

### at least two other complaints infederal 

### court. In March 2013, 

### Mr' El 

### fileJ a complaint in

### the United States District 

### court for 

### the District of New Jersey, whichConstitutional 

### and Internationally 

### secured rights 

### without 

### due process 

### of law" 

### by "the

United States through action by

### the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT under U.S.C. 18(United States Code), prohibiting, life, liberty and property ofthe Petitioner."3

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he "is a natural person, in propria persona sui 

### juris, under 

### the laws of

### the indigenous community Washitaw Dedugdahmoundya Nation 

### State and under 

### the laws 

### of

### the United States 

### of America Republic," 

### and thus 

### he is "entitled 

### to all protections enumerated within

### the United States Constitution. Specifically 

### the Fifth Amendment 

### right 

### of due process, 

### to be heard before 

### a court 

### of competent jurisdiction.

. .

# ." As relief, plaintiff seeks 

### "an award 

### of due process under

### the Fifth 

### Amendment

### tothe Constitution 

### ofthe United States 

### for

### the rights reserved 

### by the Petitioner" 

### and "an award 

### of monetary 

### damages under

### the Fifth Amendment 

### of the Constitution ofthe United States."
Defendant asserts that, in February 2015, plaintiff was convicted of conspiracy to defraud 

### the United 

### States in violation

### of 18 U.S.C. 

### S

### 286 (2012), multiple counts 

### of submitting false, fictitious, andfraudulent claims tothe United States, and three counts of mail 

### fraud inviolation 

### of 18 U.S.C. S 1341 (2012) in

### the United States District 

### Courtfor the District 

### of New 

### Jersey. Plaintiff does not contestthese 

### assertions. The allegations contained in

### the complaint currently before

### this court appear 

### to arisefrom 

### the criminal 

### proceedings involving 

### plaintiffs arrest 

### and eventual 

### conviction. Plaintiff 

### is currently incarcerated inthe Monmouth County Correctional Institution in Freehold, NewJersey.


### Plaintiff's confused and disorganized complaint 

### alleges

### that

### the United States violated his FifthAmendment right todue process by improperly exercising personal and subject matterjurisdiction over 

### him. Plaintiff argues that 

### the United States District Court of

### the District 

### of New Jersey did not have jurisdiction for several reasons, including that 

### the judges 

### were "defacto" 

### judges "operating under 

### color

### of law,"

### the United States Supreme Court isthe only court with original ju risd iction whenthe United States is a party, and, "[n]o injured party has been produced andtherefore no lawful claim under commonlaw 

### exists." Plaintiff further argues that his due process rightswere violated when hewas 

### arrested 

## by agents "acting 

## on

## a warrant issued

## by

## an un-constitutional Judge Defacto.

. ."4 Plaintiff argues that the 'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT has entered

was dismissed for failure 

### to state 

### a claim upon which relief may be

### granted. See El v. 

### New Jersev, 2:13-cv-01431 (D.N.J. 

### 2013). Shortly thereafter, 

### Mr. El filed another complaint in

### the same court,which also was dismissedfor failure

### to state a claim upon which relief may be

### granted. See Elv. NewJersev, 2:13-cv-03481 (D.N.J. 2013).
3 Capitalization, grammar, punctuation, emphasis, 

### and other errors 

### are quoted 

### in this Order asthey appear in plaintiffs submissions.

a

### To the extent 

### that plaintiff is asserting 

### a claim for 

### false arrest, such 

### a claim alleges a tort, and this court lacksjurisdiction over such 

### claims. See Keene Coro. v. United States, 5OB U.S. 

### 200,214 (1993); Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc.v. United 

### States,521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) reh'o and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied' 545 U.S. 1127 (2005); Gaddv. United 

### States,232F.3d 915 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brown

### v' United

### sham pleas 

### of not guilty 

### on behalf 

### ofthe Petitioner 

### without authorization, 

### trial has



### commenced 

### and Petitioner 

### has been found guilty through colorable proceedings." Plaintiff contends that he, objectedto

### the Personal and Subject Matterjurisdiction of

### the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT on several occasions throughout these colorable proceedings 

### and 

### all constitutional 

### claims, statements 

### and arguments 

### have been ignored or denied by (defacto) Judges.

. . 

### Plaintiff contends

### that "[t]he UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT officers, have all intentions on proceeding under color law and disregarding their obligations to the United States Constitution of

### the Republic and

### the Petitioner's rights 

### that are securedtherein." Plaintiff also alleges that "Defendant hasfailed

### to provide 

### the requested oaths of office" that plaintiff requested defendant produce.
As relief, plaintiff seeks ajudgment from this court: 

## 1. Declaring

### that the actions 

### of

### the Defendant 

### in exercising authority under 28 U.S.C. 3231 

### to prohibit all beneficial uses of the "personal rights" constitute a taking of private property for public use inviolation

### of Petitioner's rights under the FifthAmendment tothe United States Constitution ofthe Republic. 

## 2. Declaring

### that the foregoing actions 

### of Defendant under 

### 28 U.S.C. 3231 constitute 

### a deprivation 

### of Petitioner's property without due process 

### of law in violation of Petitioner's rights under 

### the FifthAmendment to the United States Constitution; 

## 3. awarding Petitioner

### the amount 

### of $250,000 (silver specie or currency of the 

### UNITED STATES), representing

### just compensation

### for these actions of Defendant, aswell as reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and all cost 

### ofthese proceedings...

Defendant filed 

### a motion to dismiss 

### for lack of subject matterjurisdiction on June 

### 26,2015, to which Plaintiff responded, followed by Defendant filing 

### a reply in support 

### of its motion and afurther response by plaintiff. 

### DlscussloN

The court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se,withoutthe assistance of counsel. When determining whether a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff is sufficient to 

### invoke review 

### by 

### a court, pro 

### se plaintiffs 

### are entitled

### to liberal construction 

### of their 

### pleadings. See Haines

### v. Kerner, 

### 404 U.S. 5'19, 

### 520-21 (requiring 

### that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings


### States, 105 F.3d 

### 621, 623 (Fed. 

### Cir.) reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 

### 1997). The Tucker Act specifically excludes actions sounding intort from this court's

### jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. S 14e1(aX1) (2012).drafted by lawyers"), reh'q denied, 405 U.S. 948 (1972); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Huqhes 

### v. Rowe,449 U.S. 5,

### 9-10 (1980); Estelle 

### v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), reh'q 

### denied,429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Mafthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.2014); Diamond v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl.516, 524, aff d, 603 F.App'x 947 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1909 (2015). "However, "'[t]here is no duty onthe part ofthetrial court to create a claim which [the plaintiffl has not spelled 

### out in his [or her] pleading.""'Lenqen 

### v. United 

### States, 100 Fed. 

### Cl. 317, 328 (2011) (alterations 

### in original) (quoting Scoqin 

### v. United 

### States,33 Fed. 

### Cl.2B5,293 (1995) (quoting Clark

### v. Nat'l Travelers Life lns. Co. , 5'18 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))); see also Bussie v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 89, 94, aff

### d,443 F.App'x 542 (Fed. Cir.2011); Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. 

### C|.249,253 (2007). "While a pro se plaintiff is held to 

### a less stringent standard than 

### that of

### a plaintiff represented by an attorney,

### the pro se 

### plaintiff, nevertheless, 

### bears 

### the burden 

### of establishing 

### the Court's 

### jurisdiction 

### by a preponderance 

### ofthe 

### evidence." Riles

### v. United 

### States,93 Fed. 

### Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Huohes 

### v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 9 and Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.) ("Plaintiff bears 

### the burden of showing jurisdiction by 

### a preponderance ofthe evidence."), reh'q 

### and reh'q en banc 

### denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002)); 

### see also Shelkofskv v. United States, 119 Fed.

### Cl. 133, 139 (2014) 

### ("lwlhile the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in

### a pro 

### se plaintiffls complaint, 

### the court 'does not excuse 

### [a complaint's] failures."' (quoting Henke

### v. United 

### States,60 F.3d

### 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)); Harris

### v. United States, 113 Fed. 

### Cl. 

### 290,292 (2013) ("Although plaintiff's pleadings 

### are held 

### to 

### a less stringent standard, such leniency 

### 'with respect

### to mere formalities does 

### not relieve the burden to meetjurisdictional requirements."' (quoting Minehan 

### v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. at 253)).

It iswell established that "'subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power 

### to hear

### a case, can never be forfeited or

### waived."' Arbauqh v.

### Y & H Corp., 546 

### U.S. 

### 500, 514 (2006) (quoting United States

### v. Cotton, 

### 535 U.S. 625, 

### 630 (2002)). "[F]ederal courts have

### an independent obligationto ensure that they 

### do not exceedthe 

### scope 

### of their jurisdiction, 

### and therefore 

### they must raise 

### and decide jurisdictional questions 

### that

### the parties either overlook

### or elect not

### to press." Henderson 

### ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011l'; see also Gonzalez v.Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012) ("When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues thatthe parties have disclaimed or have not presented."); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.

### 77,94 (2010) ("Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether 

### subjeclmatter jurisdiction exists, evenwhen no party challenges it." (citing

### &Ug-hr-Y-&-H-Q.eIS., 546 U.S. at 514)); Special Devices. Inc. v. OEA. lnc., 269 

### F.3d 1340, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[A] court has 

### a duty 

### to inquire into itsjurisdiction to hear and decide a case." (citing Johannsen v. Pay Less Druq Stores N.W.. Inc., 918 F 2d 160, 161 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1990)); 

### View Enq'o. lnc.

### v. RoboticVision Svs.. 

### lnc., 115 F.3d 962' 963 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[C]ourts must always look to theirjurisdiction, whetherthe parties raise

### the issue or not."). "Objections to atribunal's jurisdiction can be raised at anytime, 

### even by

### a party 

### that once conceded 

### the tribunal's subject-matterjurisdiction over the controversy." Sebeliusv. Auburn Reo'l Med. Ctr., 133 

### S. 

### Ct.817,824 (2013); see also Arbauqh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. at 506 ("The objection that afederal court lacks 

### subjecf matterjurisdiction

. . . may be raised bya party, or by a court on itsown initiative, at any stage inthe litigation, even after trial and the entry ofjudgment."); Cent. Pines Land Co.,L.L.C. 

### v. United States, 

### 697 F.3d 1360, 1364 

### n.1 (Fed. 

### Cr.2012\ ("An objection 

### to a

court's subject matterjurisdiction can be raised byany party orthe court at any stage of litigation, including after trial and the entry ofjudgment." (citing Arbauqh v.

### Y & H Corp., 

### 546 U.S. 

### at 506-07)); Rick's Mushroom Serv.. lnc.

### v. United States, 521 F.3d 

### at 1346 ("[A]ny party may challenge, 

### orthe court may raise sua sponte, subject matter jurisdiction 

### at any time." (citing Arbauqh v.

### Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. at 506; 

### &,lde[y.,--U-nj!edsta!S, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir.); and Fannino. Phillips & Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 717, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1998))); Pikulin v. United States, 97 Fed. 

### CL71,76, appeal dismissed,425 F.App'x 902 (Fed. 

### Cr. 2011). ln fact, "[s]ubject matterjurisdiction is an inquiry thatthis 

### court must raise 

### sua sponte, 

### even 

### where



# . neither party 

### has raised

### this issue." Metabolite Labs., 

### lnc.

### v. Lab. Corp. of

### Am. 

### Holdinqs,370 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Textile Prods.. lnc. 

### v. Mead Corp., 134 F.3d 

### 1481,1485 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o denied and 

### en banc suqqestion declined (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 826 (1998)), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. qranted in pa1! sub. nom Lab. Coro. of 

### Am. Holdinqs

## v. Metabolite 

### Labs., 

### lnc., 

### 546 U.S. 

### 975 (2005),

## cert dismissed as improvidentlv 

### qranted, 548 

### U.S. 124 (2006); 

### see also 

### Avid ldentification 

### Svs., Inc. v. Crvstal lmport 

### Corp.,603 F.3d 

### 967,971 (Fed. Cir.) ("This court must always determine 

### for itself whether 

### it hasjurisdiction 

### to hear 

### the case before it, evenwhen

### the parties do not raise or contest the issue."), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied, 6'|4 F.3d 1330 (Fed' Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. 

### Ct.909 (2011).
Pursuantto RCFC 8(aX1) and the Federal Rules of

### civil Procedure, a plaintiff need 

### only state in

### the complaint "a 

### short and plain statement 

### ofthe grounds 

### forthe court's jurisdiction," and 

### "a short 

### and plain statement 

### ofthe claim showing that 

### the pleader is entitled

### to relief." RCFC 8(aX1), (2) (2015): Fed. R. Civ. P. B(a)(1)' (2) (2015); see also 

### Ashcroftv. lqbal,556 U.S. 

### 662,677-78 (2009) (citing BellAtl. Corp.v.Twomblv' 550 U.S. sn+,

### sss-sl ,570 (2007)). "Determination ofjurisdiction starts withthe complaint, which must bewell-pleaded inthat it must state the necessary elements ofthe plaintiffs claim, independent of any defense that may be interposed." Hollev 

### v. United

### states, 124 F.3d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Franchise Tax Bd.v. 

### constr. Laborers Vacation

### Trust,463 U.S. 1 (1983)), reh'o denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997); see also Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United 

### States,97 Fed. 

### C;.203,2O8(2011); Gonzalez-McCaullev lnv. Grp., lnc. v. United 

### states, 93 Fed. Cl. 

### 710,713 (2010). "Conclusory allegations 

### of law and unwarranted 

### irfeiences of

### fact do not suffice

### to support 

### a claim." Bradlev 

### v. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 1317,1322 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also McZealv. Sprint Nextel Corp.' 501 F.3d 1354' 1363 n.9 (Fed. Cir.2007) (Dyk,J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (quoting C. Wright and 

### A. Miller, Federal Practice 

### and Procedure 

### S 1286 

### (3d

### ed.2004)). "A plaintiffs factual allegations must 'raise a rightto relief abovethe speculative level' and cross 'the line from conceivable 

### to plausible."'Three S Consulting

### v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 

### 510' 523 (2012) (quoting BellAtl. Corp.v.Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 555), 

### affd, 562 F.App'x 964 (Fed. Cir.;, ien;q denieO (Fed. Cir. 2014). As stated inAshcroft v. lqbal, "[a] pleading,that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'aformulaic recitation ofthe elements of a cause of action will not 

### do.' 550 

### u.s. at 555. Nor does 

### a complaint suffice 

### if it

### tenders'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'furtherfactual enhancement."' Ashcroft

### v. lqbal, 556 U S. at 678 (quoting Egll Atl. Corp. v.Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 555).The Tucker Act grantsjurisdiction tothis court asfollows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction

### to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, 

### or any

### Act

### of Congress 

### or any regulation 

### of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States,
orfor liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.


### 28 U.S.C. S 1a91(aX1). 

### As interpreted by

### the United States Supreme Court, theTucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allowjurisdiction over claims against the United States (1)founded on an express or implied contract withthe United States, (2) seeking a refund 

### from 

### a prior payment made 

### to the government, 

### or (3) based on 

### federal constitutional, 

### statutory,

### or regulatory 

### law mandating compensation 

### by the federal government for damages sustained. See United States 

### v. Navaio Nation,556 U.S. 287, 

### 289-90 (2009); United States

### v. Mitchell, 

### 463 U.S. 

### 206,216 (1983); 

### see also Greenlee Cntv.,Ariz. v. United 

### States,487 F.3d 

### 871,875 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q and reh'q 

### en bancdenied (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 11a2 QO08); Palmer v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

### "Not every claim invoking 

### the Constitution, 

### a federal statute, 

### or

### a regulation is cognizable under theTucker Act. The claim must be one for money damages against the United States

. . . ." United States 

### v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216; see also United States v. 

### White MountainApache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S.

### 465,472 (2003); Smith

### v. United States, 709 

### F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied, 134 

### S. Ct. 

### 259 (2013); RadioShack Corp. v. United 

### States,566 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. 

### Cir.2009); Rick's Mushroom 

### Serv.. lnc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 

### at 1343 ("[P]laintiff must

. . . identify a substantive source of law that creates the right to recovery of money damages against the United States."); Golden 

### v. United 

### States, 118 Fed. 

### Cl.764,768 (2014). In Ontario Power Generation, 

### lnc. v. United States, 

### the United States Court ofAppealsfor 

### the Federal Circuit identified three 

### types of monetary claims 

### for whichjurisdiction 

### is lodged in

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims. The court wrote:
The underlying monetary claims are ofthree types.

. . . First, claims alleging 

### the existence 

### of a contract between 

### the plaintiff and 

### the government fall 

### within

### the Tucker 

### Act's

# waiver. Second, 

### the Tucker 

### Act's waiver 

### encompasses claims 

### where 

### "the plaintiff 

### has paid money 

### over

### to the Government, directly or in effect, and seeks return of all or part ofthat sum." Eastoort S.S. lCorp. 

### v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 

### 599,605-06'1 372F.2d [1002,] 1007-08 [(1967)] (describing illegal 

### exaction claims 

### as claims "in 

### which 

### 'the Government 

### has 

### the citizen's money 

### in its pocket"' (quoting 

### Clappv. United 

### States,127 Ct.

### Cl.505, 117 F.

### Supp.576,580 

### (1954)...

. Third, the Court of Federal Claims hasjurisdiction overthose claims where "money has not been paid but

### the plaintiff asserts 

### that he 

### is nevertheless entitled

### to a payment from thetreasury." Eastport S.S., 372 F.2d 

### at 1007 

### Claims in this third category, 

### where no payment 

### has been made 

### to the government, either directly or in effect, require that the "particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to

### be paid 

### a certain sum." 

### ld.; see also lUnited States 

### v. lTestan, 

### 424 U.S.

1392,1401-02 [1976] ("Where 

### the United States is

### the defendant and the plaintiff is not suingfor money improperly exacted or retained, the basis of the federal claim-whether 

### it be

### the Constitution, 

### a statute, or 

### a regulationdoes not create a cause of action for money damages unless, asthe Court 

### of Claims 

### has stated, 

### that basis 

### 'in itself



# . . can 

### fairly be interpreted as 

### mandating compensation 

### bythe Federal Government

### for the damage sustained."' (quoting Eastport 

### S.S.,372 F.2d 

### at 1009)).

### This category is 

### commonly 

### refened 

## to as claims brought under

## a "money-mandating" statute.
Ontario 

### PowerGeneration, Inc.

### v. United 

### States,369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004);
see 

### alsoTwp. of Saddle 

### Brookv. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 101, 106(2012)' 

### To prove

### that

## a statute 

### or regulation 

### is money-mandating, 

## a plaintiff must demonstrate 

### that an independent source 

### of substantive 

### law relied upon "'can 

### fairly be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation by

### the Federal Government."' United States v. Navaio Nation, 

### 556 U.S. 

### at 290 (quoting United States 

### v. Testan, 

### 424 U

### 5. 392' 400 (1976)); see also United States v.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 472; United States

### v. Mitchell,463 U.S. at 217; Blueport Co., LLC 

### v. United States' 533 F.3d 1374' 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

### 555 U.S. 1153 (2009).

### The source 

### of law granting monetary relief must be distinct from the Tucker

### Act itself. See United States 

### v. Navaio Nation,556 U.S. at290 (The Tucker Act does not create "substantive rights; [it issimply a1 

### iurisdictional provision[] 

### that operate[s]

## to waive sovereign immunity

### for claims premised 

### on other sources 

### of law (e.9., statutes 

### or contracts)."). 

### "'lf the statute 

### is not money-mandating, 

### the 

### court 

### of Federal 

### claims lacksjurisdiction, 

### and

### the dismissal 

### should be

### for lack

### of subject matter lurisdiction."' 

### Jan's Helicopter 

### serv., lnc.

### v. Fed. 

### AviationAdmin.,52S F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) (quoting 

### Greenlee.Cjtlv'-Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d at 876); Fisherv. United States , 402 F.3d 1167 , 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The absence of a money-mandating source is "fatal tothe court'sjurisdiction under the 

### TuckerAct."); Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl.553' 

### 565-66 (2009).


### In his complaint, plaintiff asserted violations

### of his constitutional 

### right

### to due
orocess under

### the Fifth Amendment 

### tothe United States 

### Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that 

### this court hasjurisdiction 

### to hear his claims pursuant

### tothe Tucker Act, 

### 28 U.S.C.


### s 1491(a). Defendant argues, however, that "theTucker Act does not, by itself, create a right 

### to money damages against 

### the united states," and 

### that "the substantive right to 

### money damages must extend 

### from

### the constitutional provision, 

### statute, contract, or regulation giving riseto the

### claim." Defendant contends that plaintiff "hasfailed 

### to plead


### a 

### iubstantive source

### of law 

### that creates 

### a right

### to recover money damages from the Government," because 

### it iswell established 

### that 

### the Due Process clause 

### of 

### the Fifth Amendment 

### does not mandate 

### the payment 

### of money, and, 

### thus,does not provide a cause of action under the Tucker Act.

7Regarding plaintiff's claim for due process under the FifthAmendment, the Federal

Circuit has heldthat 

### this court 

### does not possess jurisdiction 

### to consider claims arising under the Due Process Clauses of

### the Fifth and Fourteenth 

### Amendments. See Smith v. United States, 

### 709 

### F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. 

### Cir.) ("The law iswell settled 

### that

### the Due Process 

### clauses

### of both

### the Fifth 

### and Fourteenth Amendments 

### do not mandate the payment of money and thus do not provide a cause ofaction under the TuckerAct." (citing 

### LeBlancv. United 

### States,50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995))), cert. denied, 

### 134S. Ct. 259 (20'13); In re United 

### States,463 F.3d 1328, 1335 n.5 (Fed. Cir.) ("[B]ecausethe Due Process 

### Clause 

### is not money-mandating, 

### it may not provide 

### the basis 

### forjurisdiction under theTucker Act."), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2006) cert. denied sub
nom. Schollv. United States, 552 U.S. 9a0 (2007);Acadia Tech., Inc. & Global WinTech., Ltd.

### v. United 

### States,458 F.3d 1327,1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 

### Crockerv. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing 

### LeBlancv. United 

### States,50 F.3d 

### at 1028) (nojurisdiction over adue process violation underthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d

### 284,288 (Fed. Cir.) ("[T]he due process clause does not 

### obligate 

### the government

### to pay money damages.'), rc"h-g 

### denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995); Mullenberq 

### v. United 

### States,857 

### F.2d770,773 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988) (finding that 

### the Due Process clauses "do nottrigger Tucker Actjurisdiction in

### the courts"); Murrav

### v. United 

### States, 817 F.2d 1580, 1583 

### (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) (noting 

### that 

### the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause does not include language mandating 

### the payment of money damages); 

### Harperv. United States, 104 Fed. 

### C|.287,291 n.5 (2012); Hampel 

### v. United.States' 97 Fed. Cl.

### 235,238,aff'd,429 F.App'x 995 (Fed. Ctt.2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1105 (2012); McCullouqh

### v. United

### States,76 Fed. Cl. 

### 1,4 (2006), appeal 

### dismissed,236 F. 

### App'x 

### 615 (Fed. 

### Cir.), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir.), 

### cert. denied, 

### 552 U

### S. 1050 (2007) 

### ("[N]either

### the Fifth Amendment 

### Due Process

# Clause nor

### the Privileges and 

### lmmunities 

### Clause provides

## a basis 

### forjurisdiction 

### in this court because

### the Fifth 

### Amendment 

### is not 

### a source 

### that mandates 

### the payment 

### of money 

### to plaintiff."). Due process claims "must be heard 

### in District 

### court." Kam-Almaz 

### v. united states, 96 Fed. 

### ct. 84, 89 (2011) (citing Acadia Tech.. lnc. & Global

### win Tech., Ltd.v. united States, 458 F.3d

### at 1334), 

### alf'd,682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. 

### Cir.2012); see also Hampel 

### v. United States, 

### 97 Fed. 

### Cl. 

### at

### 238. Therefore, 

### to the extent 

### that plaintiff 

### is attempting 

### to allege Due Process violations, no such cause of action can be brought inthis court.

In addition to monetary damages, plaintiff asks this court to declare that,
[T]he actions ofthe Defendant in exercising authority under 28 U.S.C. 3231 

### io prohibit all beneficial uses of

### the "personal rights" constitute ataking of private property 

### for public 

### use inviolation 

### of Petitioner's rights under the Fifth Amendment tothe United States Constitution ofthe Republic.

. . [and] thattheforegoing actions

### of Defendant under 28 U S'C. 3231 constitute a deprivation of Petitioner's property without due process of law inviolation of 

### Petitioner's 

### rights under 

## the Fifth Amendment 

## tothe United States Constitution.

. .Plaintiffls allegations in noway can be considered ataking inviolation ofthe Fifth



### Amendment 

## tothe United States 

### Constitution. 

### The Takings Clause

### ofthe Fifth Amendment tothe United States Constitution provides in pertinent part: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend.

### V. The purpose 

### ofthis Fifth Amendment provision is

### to prevent

### the government 

### from "'forcing some people alone

### to bear public burdenswhich, in all fairness andjustice, should be borne by

### the public as a

### whole."' Palazzolo 

### v. Rhode lsland, 533 U.S. 606, 618 (2001) (quoting Armstronq 

### v. United States, 

### 364 

### U.S.40,49 (1960)); 

### see also Penn Central Transp. Co. v. Citv of NewYork,438 U.S. 104,123-24, reh'q denied, 439 U.S. 883 (1978); Linqle

### v. Chevron U.S.A. 

### lnc., 544 U.S. 528, 

### 536 (2005); 

### E. Enters.v.

### Apfel, 524 U.S. 498,522 (1998); Rose Acre Farm. Inc. v. United States, 559 F.3d 1260,1266 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q en 

### bancdenied (Fed. 

### Cir.2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1501 (2010); Janowskvv. United States, 133 F.3d 

### 888,892 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Resource Invs., lnc. v. United States, 

### 85 Fed. 

### C'.447,469-70 (2009); Pumpellv 

### v. Green Bav & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. (13 

### Wall.) 166, 179 (1871\ (citing 

### to principles which establish that "private property may be taken

### for public uses when public necessity or utility requires" andthat there is a "clear principle 

### of natural equity that 

### the individual whose property isthus sacrificed must be indemnified.").
A plaintiff must showthat the government took a private property interest for public
use without just compensation. See Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 81 1 (2005); Arbelaez v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 753, 

### 762(2010):Gahaqanv.UnitedStates,72Fed. Cl. 157, 

### 162(2006). "Theissueofwhether
ataking has occurred 

### is a question 

### of law based on

### factual underpinnings." Huntleiqh USA Corp 

### v. United States, 525 

### F.3d 1370, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1045 (2008) (citations 

### omitted). The Federal Circuit has established 

### atwo-part test to determine whether governmental actions amount to taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment. See Klamath 

### lrr. Dist.

### v. United 

### States,635 F.3d

### 505,511 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 

### Am. Pelaqic Fishinq Co.

### v. United 

### States,379 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (citing M &J Coal Co. v. United States

,47 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (Fed. Cir. 1995)), reh'q en banc 

### denied, 

### (2004).

### A court

### first determines 

### whether 

### a plaintiff possesses 

### a cognizable property interest in

### the subject 

### ofthe alleged 

### taking. Then, 

### the court must determine 

### whether

### the government 

### action 

### is

### a "'compensable 

### taking 

### ofthat property interest."' Huntleiqh USA Corp v. United States, 525 F.3d at'1377 (quotingAm. Pelaqic Fishinq Co.. L.P.v. United States, 379 F.3d 

### a| 1372).


### A plaintiff alleging ataking must have 

### a legally cognizable property interest, such
as

### the right 

### of possession, use or disposal of the property. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 

### 458 U.S. 

### 419,435 (1982) (citing United States 

### v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

### 323 U.S. 373 (19a5)); 

### CRV Enters., lnc.

### v. United 

### States,626 F.3d 1241,1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct.2459 (201 1); KarukTribe of Cal. v.Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o denied and en banc suqqestion denied (Fed. Cir. 2OO0), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 941 (2OO1). 

### "|t is axiomatic that only persons with avalid property interest 

### at 

### the time 

### of the taking are entitled 

### to compensation." 

### Am. Pelaoic Fishinq Co.v. United States, 379 F.3d

### al 1372 (quoting Wvattv. United States

,

### 27'l F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002) and citing Cavinv. United 

### States, 

### 956 F.2d 1131,1134 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1992)). Therefore, "[i]f

### the claimant 

### fails todemonstratethe existence of 

### a legally cognizable property interest, the courts [sic] task

is at an end." Am. Pelaqic Fishinq Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (citing Maritrans lnc.

### v. United States
,342 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and M &J Coal, 

### 47 F.3d at

1

### 154).The court does not address the second step "without first identifying a cognizable property interest." Air Peqasus of D.C., lnc.

### v. United States, 424 F.3d 1206, 1213 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Am. Pelaqic Fishinq Co.v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1381 and Conti v. United 

### States,291 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cn.2002), cert. 

### denied,537 U.S. 1112 (2003)), reh'o denied and reh'o en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 

### 2005). Only ifthere isto be a next step, "after 

### having identified 

## a valid property interest, 

### the court must determine whether the governmental action at issue amounted to a compensable taking ofthat property interest." Huntleiqh USA Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d at 1378 (quotingAm. Pelaqic Fishinq Co.
v. United States, 379 F.3d 

### at 1372). Tothe extent plaintiff alleges that aviolation of due process is ataking, plaintiff has not alleged a property interest subject to a constitutional taking claim nor has plaintiff alleged any cognizable taking.
Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that the Court of Federal Claims "does 

### not have general equity 

### jurisdiction

### to grant injunctive 

### relief." Shemonskv 

### v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (upholding decision ofthe Courtof Federal Claims that the court'sjurisdiction did not extend to injunctive ordeclaratory relief); see also Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1331 (Fed. Cir.) reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1006 (2010); Martinez v. United States, 333 F'3d 

### 1295, 1303 (Fed. 

### Cir.2003); Choate 

### v. United 

### States,60 F.3d 840 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995) (holdingthat "[t]he Tucker

### Act does not provide

### a means bywhich 

### the Court

### of Federal Claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where

### the suit does not involve 

### a preaward 

### protestorthe application ofsection 7428 of lhe Internal Revenue Code"). As stated by

### the Federal Circuit:
The Court 

### of Federal Claims has never been granted general authority to issue declaratory judgments, and

### to hold that

### the Court

### of Federal Claims 

### may issue

### a declaratory 

### judgment in this case, unrelated 

### to any money claim pending before it,would effectively override Congress'sdecision not 

### to make

### the Declaratory Judgment 

### Act applicable 

### tothe Court 

### of Federal Claims.

Nat'l 

### AirTraffic Controllers Ass'n v. United States, 160 F.3d

### 714,716-17 (Fed. Cir.1998);


### see also United States 

### v. Tohono O'Odham 

### Nation,563 U.S.307 (2011) (The United States Court of Federal Claims "has no general power

### to provide equitable relief against 

### the Government 

### or itsofficers."). Moreover, 

### in an action brought under 

### 28 U.S.C. S 1491(a),this court can only provide declaratory or injunctive relief "as an incident of and collateral to" ajudgment for money 

### damages. 28 U.S.C. S 1a92(a)(2); see alsoTavlor v' United 

### states, 1 13 Fed.

### cl. 17 1, 173 (2013) (holding that theTucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute 

### cases). For example, in a case brought undertheTucker Act that did not involve a pre-award protest,
once 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims determined

### that itdid not havejurisdiction 

### to hear a 

### plaintiffs claims

### for money damages, 

### it necessarily followed that the court 

### did not have authority

### to hear

### that plaintiffs claims 

### for injunctive 

### relief. See Kanemoto

### v. Reno, 41

10F.3d 641, 

### 645 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994); see also Tavlor

### v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 

### at 173.

Accordingly, plaintiff sdemands for declaratory relief are dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.

Plaintiff also contends in his complaintthat

### the New Jersey District Court did not have subject matter or personaljurisdiction over him. Tothe extentthat plaintiff is alleging 

### thatthe New

### Jersey Diskict Court erred 

### in exercising jurisdiction in

### the criminal action brought against him, such allegations also do not establish jurisdiction inthis 

### court. The Court of Federal Claims does not have authority 

### to review decisions issued byjudges 

### of the United States District 

### Courts. See Vereda, LTDA. 

### v. United 

### States,271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. 

### Cir.2001); Joshua

### v. United States, 17 F.3d 

### 378,379 

### (Fed Cir. 1994); see also Cooper v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 306, 312 (2012) (holding that "this court does not havejurisdiction over [plaintiffs] claims because the court may review neither criminal matters, northe decisions ofdistrict courts.") (internal citations omitted); Mendes v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl.

### 759,762, appeal dismissed 

### ,375 F.App'x 

### 4 (Fed. Cir' 2009); 

### Huffed


### v. united states, 87 Fed. Cl. 

### 696, 702 (2009) (holding

### thatthe united 

### states court of feOerat Claims lacked

### jurisdiction over claims arising 

### from the violation 

### of a criminal statute); Matthews

### v. United

### states,72 Fed.

### cl. 274,282 (findingthat

### the court lacked jurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiffs criminal claims), recons. denied, 73 Fed. Cl. 524 (2006); -lr/cCullouqh v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. at

### 4 (finding that the court lackedjurisdictionto consider 

### platntiffb criminal 

### claims). Therefore, 

### this court lacks jurisdiction over 

### any of plaintiff s claims.


### when filing his complaint, plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed .informa pauperis. According 

### to hislomplaint, plaintiff is 

### an inmate at

### the Monmouth County Correctional Institutiori in Freehold, New

### Jersey. In order to provide access tothis court tothose who cannot pay thefiling fees mandated inthis court by RCFC 77.1(c) (2015), the statute at 

### 2g U.S.C.-S 1g1S(2012) permits 

### a court 

### to allow plaintiffs 

### tofile 

### a complaint without payment 

### oifees or security, under specific 

### circumstances. The standard 

### in28 U.S.C. 

### b

## iglSt"ltr) for

### jnforma pauperis eligibility is "unable 

### to pay suchfees or give security 

### iherefor.'; Determination of

### what constitutes "unable 

### to pay"

### or unable 

### to "give security therefor," and therefore, whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed informa paUperis is left to the discretion of

### the presiding judge, based on the information submitted by

### the plaintiff


### or plaintiffs. See,

## eg, Rowiand 

### v. Cal. Men's Colonv, 

### 506 U.S. 194'

### 217-18 (1993); Fuentes 

### v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 85, 92 (2011)


### when the person submitting a request to proceed i1forma oauperig is a prisoner, 2g U.S.C. S 1915iaX2) requires

### tnit ttre prisoner submit, along with the affidavit required bysubsection (aX1), a certified copy of: 

### [T]hetrustfundaccountstatement(orinstitutiona|equiva|ent)forthe brisone,

### for the 6_month period immediately preceding 

### the filing 

### of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison atwhich the prisoner is orwas confined


### 28 U.S.C. S 1915(aX2); see also Matthews 

### v. United states
,

### 72 Fed.

### cl. at

### 277. Inthe affidavit required under 28 U.S.C. S 1915(aX1 ), a prisoner must further "state the nature ofthe action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress."

11

### 28 U.S.C. 

### S 

### 1915(aXl). In

### the above-captioned 

### case, plaintiff submitted 

### the required

information and certification with his request to proceed informa 

### oauperis. Although Mr. El's income level may qualifo him 

### for informa oauoeris status, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
CONCLUSION


### For all

### the reasons discussed 

### above, 

### plaintiffs complaint 

### is 

### DlsilllssED. The Clerk ofthe Court shall enter JUDGMENT consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

# lLrral*

/MARIAN BLANK HORN

12